Guns, the Great Equalizer: 10 Year Old Boy Trades Fire With Home Invaders

Two would-be armed robbers got more than they expected on Monday. After forcing their way into a Brooklyn home, one of the suspects chased a resident who ran for cover in an adjacent bathroom. As he reached through a door with his handgun, a woman slammed it on his arm, forcing him to drop the firearm. At that point, say witnesses, a 10 year old boy living in the home picked up the gun and opened fire.

One of the suspects returned fire and then promptly fled the scene.

NYPD reports that no one was injured in the altercation. Police are still searching for the individuals responsible for the home invasion.

It's pointless to argue this particular case because (besides it being anecdotal evidence) we don't know where or how the home invaders got their guns. It's entirely possible that further gun control would have prevented them from buying their weapons, but it's also entirely possible that it wouldn't have done a damn thing. We just don't know yet.

However, I would hope we can all agree that the world would be a safer place if we didn't let guns into the hands of a) these two creeps, and b) this presumably-entirely-untrained kid.

__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"

It's pointless to argue this particular case because (besides it being anecdotal evidence) we don't know where or how the home invaders got their guns. It's entirely possible that further gun control would have prevented them from buying their weapons, but it's also entirely possible that it wouldn't have done a damn thing. We just don't know yet.

However, I would hope we can all agree that the world would be a safer place if we didn't let guns into the hands of a) these two creeps, and b) this presumably-entirely-untrained kid.

Some of the most stringent gun laws in the country suggests that we do know the answer you dumb shit.

The only garaunteed way to stop a criminal from being a criminal is to put and end to his or her existence on this planet.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

It's pointless to argue this particular case because (besides it being anecdotal evidence) we don't know where or how the home invaders got their guns. It's entirely possible that further gun control would have prevented them from buying their weapons, but it's also entirely possible that it wouldn't have done a damn thing. We just don't know yet.

However, I would hope we can all agree that the world would be a safer place if we didn't let guns into the hands of a) these two creeps, and b) this presumably-entirely-untrained kid.

If home invaders want guns, they will get them. That's what you gun grabbers refuse to understand.

This "presumably-entirely-untrained kid" is a hell of a lot safer because he had access to a gun in his house to defend himself. If you were in charge, he would be dead.

First of all (from what I can glean from the little bit of info we have about this story), he didn't have access to a gun; he picked up the Bad Guy's gun from the floor after someone (he? his mother?) slammed the door on the Bad Guy's arm. Then he started firing, prompting the other Bad Guy to start firing back, before both Bad Guys ran.

Again, let me bring it back to what both sides want - for the two Bad Guys to not have the guns. That's all there is here, because there are no law-abiding gun owners in this story. He had no "access to a gun in his house to defend himself" for us to argue about.

And as for the two Bad Guys here, I refuse to believe that "if home invaders want guns, they will get them", and then throw up our hands and leave it at that. We can find out how and where they got their guns, and then take steps to close that avenue off. Until they find them, though (if they do), we can't really speculate on what that might be.

That's all I was saying. No gun-grabbing junta here. You can unclench.

I'm not talking about gun laws in general. I'm talking about the one that is the subject of this thread. That's why I used the words "this particular case".

This particular case or any other, it makes no difference. If people want to engage in criminal activity, the will do so. Laws or no laws. So your pondering of wether or not further gun laws would have prevented this is nothing more than a waste of time.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

First of all (from what I can glean from the little bit of info we have about this story), he didn't have access to a gun; he picked up the Bad Guy's gun from the floor after someone (he? his mother?) slammed the door on the Bad Guy's arm. Then he started firing, prompting the other Bad Guy to start firing back, before both Bad Guys ran.

Again, let me bring it back to what both sides want - for the two Bad Guys to not have the guns. That's all there is here, because there are no law-abiding gun owners in this story. He had no "access to a gun in his house to defend himself" for us to argue about.

And as for the two Bad Guys here, I refuse to believe that "if home invaders want guns, they will get them", and then throw up our hands and leave it at that. We can find out how and where they got their guns, and then take steps to close that avenue off. Until they find them, though (if they do), we can't really speculate on what that might be.

That's all I was saying. No gun-grabbing junta here. You can unclench.

Fairy tales and rainbows. Sunshine and kittens. You obviously live in a fantasy world if you actually believe that we can legislate guns out of the hands of criminal elements. Because laws have worked so well in the pursuit of keeping drugs out of people's hands. They worked wonders in keeping booze off the market during Prohibition. And they worked amazingly well in keeping these two intruders from breaking and entering.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

First of all (from what I can glean from the little bit of info we have about this story), he didn't have access to a gun; he picked up the Bad Guy's gun from the floor after someone (he? his mother?) slammed the door on the Bad Guy's arm. Then he started firing, prompting the other Bad Guy to start firing back, before both Bad Guys ran.

Again, let me bring it back to what both sides want - for the two Bad Guys to not have the guns. That's all there is here, because there are no law-abiding gun owners in this story. He had no "access to a gun in his house to defend himself" for us to argue about.

And as for the two Bad Guys here, I refuse to believe that "if home invaders want guns, they will get them", and then throw up our hands and leave it at that. We can find out how and where they got their guns, and then take steps to close that avenue off. Until they find them, though (if they do), we can't really speculate on what that might be.

That's all I was saying. No gun-grabbing junta here. You can unclench.

Yeah, we could use the same strategy that they use for illegal drugs. We've made them illegal, and now no criminals have access to drugs. Brilliant plan really....